Darryl Anderson was drunk behind the wheel of his Audi SUV, had his accelerator pressed to the floor and was barreling toward a car ahead of him when he snapped a photo of his speedometer. The picture showed a car in the foreground, a collision warning light on his dashboard and a speed of 141 mph (227 kph).

An instant later, he slammed into the car in the photo. The driver, Shalorna Warner, was not seriously injured but her 8-month-old son and her sister were killed instantly, authorities said. Evidence showed Anderson never braked.

Anderson, 38, was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years in prison for the May 31 crash in northern England that killed little Zackary Blades and Karlene Warner. Anderson pleaded guilty last week in Durham Crown Court to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving.

  • n2burns@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a Canadian, I read 141 and thought, “141 km/h is pretty fast, but that’s not international news fast.” Then I saw it was mph!

    Driving that fast on a closed course while sober with complete focus is dangerous. Yet this guy was drunk and texting on public roads.

    “Sometimes mistakes happen," he said. "But I’m not a bad person.”

    AFAIK, no mistakes happened, those were all choices. And by making those choices, yes, you are a bad person.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude didn’t even wait for the bodies to get cold before he absolved himself. What a gaping asshole

    • Sigilos@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree these where choices, and he should be held accountable for them. I disagree that they make him a bad person, because a person may not have the understanding of what those choices can result in. I agree that he is not a good person, but I agree because he is refusing to take responsibility for his choices.

      Edit: And upon reading the remainder of the article, I agree he is not a good person, because he clearly did understand what those choices could result in. Shooting video while driving, let alone at those kind of speeds, and while drunk? I can’t think of any excuse or explanation that could mitigate that.

      • GluWu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is literally the afluenza teen defense that got Ethan Couch zero jail time for killing 4 people and seriously injuring 9 while drunk driving.

        This guy is too poor to drive drunk and actually has to face consequences for his actions.

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why can someone even drive a car that can go that fast on public streets? Countries should enforce speed limiters on vehicles brought into their country for roadway use. It may not prevent drunks from driving, but it could slow them down and prevent some deaths and injury. People don’t even need to be drunk for these speeds to be dangerous.

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because every time government tries to limit vehicles there is a very loud roar of whataboutism and mah freedom.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        At a certain point we need to prioritize people’s safety over “vroom vroom”. 200+ km/h is nearly double highway speeds. Children dying from speeding crashes should be much more important than somebodys ego and desire to speed.

    • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How would these work exactly? Where I live max speed on freeways is 70mph and 25mph on residential streets. You can definitely still kill someone using a car limited to maximum legal speed.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can certainly kill someone going the maximum legal speed in a place where the speed limit is much lower. But the likelihood of injury and death still does increase with the increase in speed. So if, say, 5% of accidents involving someone going 70 are fatal, but 10% if the person is going 90 (these are made-up numbers), then if cars are not even able to go above 70, you end up saving lives.

        • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I doubt there’s significant difference.

          One of those speed limits is designed for a location where cars are unlikely to hit a human directly. Another location can have a child randomly run into the street. 70 and 170 are both death sentences.

          Speed limiters in cars that don’t dynamically adjust to actual speed limits are useless and only exist to check the boxes for idiot voters disconnected from reality.

          • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            While I agree that it would certainly be ideal if a speed limiter could account for the context that the car is in, you’ve missed a lot in drawing your conclusion that it would be useless without being able to do that.

            Hitting a pedestrian is not the only type of accident. If you rear end a car going 25 mph at 70mph it is not a guaranteed death sentence for all. Especially if the driver brakes, which some do not, but some will. And this is ignoring cases where there isn’t a tremendous mismatch in speed. Like, even if it reduced residential deaths by 0% but it reduced overall deaths looking at all situations, it would be a net gain with literally nothing lost. We are looking at the aggregate here. So, it isn’t relevant if you think of one specific situation where you believe 70mph isn’t better than 90mph or whatever number.

            Reaction time and braking distance are affected by speed. In some cases, the person going 70 might be able to slow down enough to have the collision be non-fatal. Reaction time goes down and braking distance goes up as speed increases. If a speed limiter gives just enough time to occasionally make an accident non-fatal, then in the aggregate you have fewer fatal accidents.

            In fact, taking braking distance into account, I don’t think you can even say that over the millions of miles driven, that a speed maxed at 70mph isn’t going to, occasionally, lead to a situation in a residential area where someone was able to just get out of the way in time because the car covered 30% less distance between the time the pedestrian reacted and the time the car reached that spot (or an even larger difference if the driver noticed and braked at some point as well). But again, it doesn’t matter if it’s few to none in this specific scenario, because a speed limiter of 70 will certainly reduce fatalities overall.

      • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s saying that if the car in the article was speed limited, it would’ve hit the back of that poor girl’s car and dented it, instead of ruining people’s entire lives

          • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I did. I’m just saying speed limiters would reduce deaths overall, but of course you had to counteract with “but they won’t reduce deaths in this specific situation”

            • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lower speeds will lower impact forces, increase vehicle handling, and provide more reaction time for drivers.

  • Archelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anderson lied to police, saying a hitchhiker was driving at the time of the crash.

    Prosecutor Emma Dowling said a roadside breath test showed Anderson was nearly three times over the limit driving after drinking. An empty vodka bottle was found in his car.

    Witnesses later reported that he had been driving dangerously for 20 miles (32 kilometers) and his phone showed he had been sending text messages.

    At a police station, he told officers he had driven into the back of a car.

    “Sometimes mistakes happen," he said. "But I’m not a bad person.”

    Sometimes mistakes happen!!!??? My dude, you murdered two people out of sheer recklessness and negligence and then lied about it. You don’t get to excuse your behaviour by saying “oh, I’m not a bad person…”

    Take some fucking responsibility. Although, I guess if you were capable of taking responsibility for your actions you wouldn’t be on your phone while driving double the highway speed limit and drunk off your ass.

    • Otakulad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reading this, he was probably still very drunk when he said it. Doesn’t make him any less of a POS.

      Also, alcohol generally makes someone tell the truth, so I’m guessing his only remorse is I got caught.

  • jprice@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why do they make cars that are faster than speed limits? Because people are fucking retarded.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You wanna go faster than the highway speed limit? Build high speed rail, much safer and a more controled environment.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fine, but this was in England, where there are speedlimits everywhere and there is an ocean channel between it and the closest place without speedlimits.

    • ealoe@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good for you that you’ve never had an emergency in your life, be grateful for your privileged existence. I drove 100mph to get my wife to the hospital when she went into anaphylaxis. She could be dead if my car was limited to 55mph. Take your one size fits all approach and shove it up your privileged ass.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would have called an ambulance because they have sirens to get through traffic and go fast, and can start treatment as soon as they arrive, plus you can give emergency aid yourself until they arrive, instead of driving.

        However, I acknowledge that my local paramedics are closer than my nearest hospital, and traffic is a greater factor than distance in Los Angeles. It might pan out differently on empty roads in the middle of nowhere.

        I also know from my spouse’s several life-and-death medical crises that it’s hard to stay calm. Which argues against driving but explains the choice. I’ve run into a Code Blue and taken over, because I knew my spouse’s very specific needs were being missed. I would never do anything like that normally, but I did bring him back, so yeah, you do what you need to do.

        I’m glad your wife is okay, and you didn’t crash into anyone.

        • nocturne@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would have called an ambulance because they have sirens to get through traffic and go fast

          When I was dying from a rattlesnake bite we were told to drive, in a life or death situation like this the ambulance takes too long.

          • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I just saw this again and realized, you needed antivenin for a snakebite, so the EMTs would have been pretty useless. Definitely a drive to hospital situation, that.

        • ealoe@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In my case the hospital on the local military base (which I have access to) was likely to be faster to access than the paramedics, it was one of those cases like you mentioned where sometimes we can be faster than an ambulance. I did not have traffic to contend with due to the time of day there were only a handful of other people on the roads. Glad you were able to help your spouse too, they’re lucky to have you!

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The time it takes to determine its a legitmate emergency and not someone making excuses could still have exceeded the emergency response time of an ambulance.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Take your one size fits all approach and shove it up your privileged ass.

        You make a reasonable point then torpedo any potential for upvotes in that last sentence.

        • ealoe@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough, fortunately upvotes don’t pay my rent or I’d have to find a bridge to live under. It’s just frustrating to do deal with people who can’t imagine that others might have different needs than their own and insist everyone fits into their quick and easily defined box.

        • ealoe@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was faster than an ambulance as I could take her to a closer hospital than the one they’d be coming from and I could leave immediately, no need for a phone conversation first. Sometimes ambulances are quicker but in some cases like mine, they wouldn’t be.

        • daq@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ambulance could take 30 minutes to get to your house. But even if you imagine a magic ambulance that gets there in 5, that’s 5 extra minutes a person is potentially not breathing.

          • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Do your ambulances not come with paramedics? They can start treatment as soon as they arrive so no extra time. Also the ambulance has sirens that should allow it to get to you faster then you’d take recklessly speeding to the hospital.

    • doodledup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      140 is not very fast in some countries. In Germany, a farming vehicle will pass you at that speed.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So he was playing like a game of chicken while driving? At that speed? 🤦

    So sorry for the victims, that’s horrible

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I am baffled at how bloomy rind dick cheeses like this guy can find one night stands, girlfriends and spouses, while I have struggled for years to date.

    Because if you drunkenly boast to airport staff that your wife left you whilst on vacation, and you’re driving 200 miles away to get another one, then you come across as one of those womanizing pieces of shit who somehow pulls when they don’t deserve to. Actually no, you’re worse than that, because your average douche wouldn’t drink drive at 141 mph whilst taking dashboard pics on his phone for clout.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m guessing because you have standards and want to be with someone who actually cares about you and who you care about and who you share interests with beyond a cheap fuck.

      Unfortunately, loneliness is a huge problem in our society and you are one of the many people who suffer from it, but this asshole is just as lonely. He’s just filling the loneliness gap with something he might as well pay for considering how much it really means to him in terms of being with another person.

      • Clbull@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What standards?

        I’ve lowered mine substantially over the years and women still treat me like I’m scum of the earth, but will get with douchebags like this guy.

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m almost 100% certain that a 141MPH impact absolutely destroyed everything that the car seat was attached to. There was an accident posted on reddit a couple years ago (from either L.A. or Texas) where a guy was going something like 120MPH and hit stopped traffic on the highway. His vehicle completely sheared off the upper half of the car he hit first and then shot over several vehicles before hitting a building probably 30 yards off the side of the freeway. A car traveling that fast carries an insane amount of energy.

      • sun_is_ra@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But take into account that the woman was also driving at certain speed when he hit her. If she was driving at 100MPH then his speed relative to her was just 41MPH